Ready to impress a hiring manager with a list of your past accomplishments? That may be a flawed approach. According to studies conducted by Stanford’s Zakary Tormala and Jayson Jia, and Harvard Business School’s Michael Norton, people prefer potential rather than achievement when evaluating others.

From the study’s abstract:

…compared with references to achievement (e.g., “this person has won an award for his work”), references to potential (e.g., “this person could win an award for his work”) appear to stimulate greater interest and processing, which can translate into more favorable reactions. This tendency creates a phenomenon whereby the potential to be good at something can be preferred over actually being good at that very same thing.

Harvard Business Review has a description of a test scenario involving a job candidate:

…they compared perceptions of someone with two years of relevant experience who scored highly on a test of leadership achievement, versus someone with no relevant experience who scored highly on a test of leadership potential. (Both candidates had equally impressive backgrounds in every other way). Evaluators believed the candidate with leadership potential would be more successful at the new company than the candidate with a proven record of leadership ability.

The researchers even went so far as to ask the subjects acting as hiring managers which subject had the more impressive resume. The subjects agreed that it was the person with more experience… but they still preferred the candidate with more “potential.”

In case you think this is just agism rearing its ugly head, the team controlled for age and found that this wasn’t a factor.

The good news is that I never listened to my mom about “fulfilling my potential” so I’ve got lots of it to spare. Do you?

I’ll take Mr. Obama over Mittens any day. His proven ability at shipping American jobs overseas and inability to understand basic economics (not that voodoo “less taxes=more jobs” bs) leads me to believe he has a lot of potential…to run this country into the ground.

But I give money to Consumer Reports and that, my friend,
according to the Supreme Court is the same as speech.
I say take your whining about content on this blog to some
other blog that is focused on whiners about blog content.

How the hell do I list my potential without sounding like a self-righteous douchenozzle?

Future Potential:
– $15 million in U.S. sales within first year
– CEO of this company in 4 years
– Voted Most Influencial Business Leader 4 years in a row in 16 years
– President of the United States in 12 years
– First octogenarian in space, 2065

So someone who has done nothing but “has the potential” to do great things is preferred over the candidate who has actually done those great things??? And how the Hades do they divine who has this alleged potential? What is this great leadership test? Ouija board?

I have a hard time believing that they were able to rule out agism. This screams of it.

“The researchers even went so far as to ask the subjects acting as hiring managers which subject had the more impressive resume. The subjects agreed that it was the person with more experience… but they still preferred the candidate with more “potential.”

Exactly, because the person with potential can be paid less. Haven’t looked at the original study so can’t comment on quality of data analysis…something tells me though….

MegaCorp Inc. CEO, Richie Goofus Esq., reads HBS and gasps. Suddenly he’s struck with a brilliant, fool-proof plan to dominate his highly competitive industry. He snaps his fingers and bellows to his administrative assistant to fetch him the head of human resources, forthwith! In moments the head of HR sprints into the room, her ribs heaving. While she catches her breath, the CEO places his elbows on the table and tents his fingers. He puts on his most serious scowl, and in the silhouette of his $15,000 unicorn-hide leather chair he unveils his managerial opus. It is the decision of a lifetime. Books will be written of his brilliance. He will be a B school case study for decades to come.

The head of HR looks on, wide-eyed, as he speaks with his most distinguished voice: “We must hire for potential. We must hire babies.”

This makes absolutely no sense to me. I don’t understand this. So managers seem to prefer people with no experience over those with experience? Especially those who have been proven in their field? I just cannot comprehend this as a retail (asst.) manager. I would never pick the less experienced unless the interview just rang right with me.